Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review closing down

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review closing down
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-18 14:47:33

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrey Semashev" <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review closing down

> 
> On 03/18/2010 01:07 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
>>>> My proposal was multiple to respond to the needs of other users. >From my side it is enough to identify an attribute using a tag. What is wrong using tags?
>>>
>>> I think, using tags as keys in the attribute set is less natural than
>>> strings or any other runtime object for that matter.
>>
>> Note that tags are static. So no runtime penality.
> 
> If you're after a fully static logging library, the proposed library 
> does not suit you. There was a discussion on that topic during the review.

I'm for a pragmatic log library that is able to make the difference between typical log attributes that are intrinsic to the library and that can be staticaly binded as know already, and extrinsic attributes (specific to the application) that need to be managed in a more dynamic way. 

Up to you to take advantage of this separation or not, but I'm sure your library will win in simplicity and efficiency, presenving the openess that it has now. 
 
>> Could you answer my question, What is the value of "ProcessId"?
> 
> It's an integral process identifier. The result of getpid on UNIX and 
> GetCurrentProcessId on Windows.

On the projects I work with multiple process logging on the same file, we use to add a readble label identifying the process which correspond by default to the program name.

Just my 2cts.

Best,
Vicente